Kerala High Court Expunges Adverse Remarks Against Young Advocate, Stresses Lawyers' Role In Preserving Integrity Of Justice Delivery System

A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji made the observation in an appeal seeking to expunge a portion of adverse observations made against an advocate in a judgment.

The appeal arose from a judgment dated August 17, 2026. The appellant was not challenging the findings on the substantive disputes in the writ petition but sought the expunging of observations directed against him in his capacity as counsel for the writ petitioner.

It was contended that the Single Judge had made unsubstantiated and unfair observations suggesting that the advocate had deliberately attested his client's affidavit despite knowing its contents to be false.

The appellant argued that an advocate could not automatically be held responsible for the truth or otherwise of statements made by a client in an affidavit. Reliance was placed on Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa v. Rajiv Nareshchandra [2026].

The counsel further submitted that judicial observations intended to guide a young advocate should not jeopardise the advocate's professional career. He therefore sought expunction of the adverse findings or appropriate modification of the earlier judgment.

The Division Bench emphasised that advocates are expected to make truthful disclosures before courts when they are aware of relevant facts. At the same time, the Bench recognised that counsel ordinarily act on the basis of their clients' instructions, documents supplied to them and affidavits sworn to by their clients.

The Court observed that if an advocate has no reason to suspect the veracity of a client's statements, blame cannot automatically be attributed to the advocate. However, it underscored that lawyers must scrutinise the documents produced by their clients and assess their contents before filing them in court.

The Bench noted that where circumstances give an advocate reason to suspect improper conduct or misleading statements, the advocate must exercise caution, make appropriate disclosures and uphold the standards expected of an officer of the court.

The Court explained that these were the professional responsibilities the Single Judge had sought to emphasise, albeit in an admonishing tone.

“Inevitably, if not always, the responsibility of a judgment to be accurate is not merely on the judge concerned, but on the system itself - of which learned Counsel enjoy a position of trust. Axiomatically, to preserve the integrity of the justice delivery mechanisms, their actions have to be at the acme of certitude, credibility, probity, righteousness and rectitude.” Court noted.

Reiterating the professional standards prescribed under the Bar Council of India Rules, the Bench highlighted an advocate's duty to prevent clients from resorting to sharp or unfair practices in relation to the court, opposing counsel or other parties.

The Rules also require advocates to exercise independent judgment, use restrained language in pleadings and avoid intemperate arguments and scurrilous attacks.

“It is the fundamental imperative that an Advocate must zealously and fearlessly protect the client's interests; but through fair means, without being their personal extension or alter ego.” the Bench observed.

While acknowledging the importance of judicial guidance and professional discipline, the Division Bench observed that the earlier judgment, read as a whole, appeared to have been intended to mentor the appellant, who was a young member of the Bar.

“The intent of the learned Single Judge was perspicuously to mentor the appellant, since he is a young member of the Bar, with a future ahead.” Court observed.

The Court stated that although the language used in the earlier judgment was harsh, it was not intended to be caustic but was meant to caution the advocate and remind him of his professional duties.

Nonetheless it that the observations could have an unintended impact on the advocate's future and should not be allowed to remain unmodified. It thus directed that the portion of paragraph 5 of the Single Judge's judgment beginning with the words “It is well settled” and continuing to the end of that paragraph be expunged.

The Court expressly clarified that the impugned judgment would remain unaltered in all other respects.

Counsel for Appellant: Manas P Hameed, Ipsita Ojal, J. Sai Deepak (Sr.)

Counsel for Respondent: P.M. Rafeek (Sr. GP) Mohan Jacob George